i realize now about the map, i think if you want a perfect map about Madrid, you should think to change some names that are wrong in the map:

Convento Rodriguez ( Francos Rodriguez zone) i think it is not very known for people, maybe you can consider change this zone to Ciudad Universitaria ( the bigger Univertisy of Spain).

Glorieta de Sandro Pertini ( really i lived a lot of years in Madrid and i never heard about that) why not Aeropuerto de Barajas? ( barajas airport, it is the 4th european airport.

Mézquita de Omar --nobody use this name, all people known this place like : Mézquita de la M-30

Plaza de toros--you are right but there are more than one in madrid, but the important is : Las Ventas is the right name for this zone

Pozuelo de Alarcón-- it is not in madrid city, it is another city close to Madrid,but it is ok.

Lázaro Galdiano (Lázaro Galdeano is correct ) i think this zone is not very known for people, why not Santiago Bernabeu?

Imagen Curiosa ( what is this? curious image? i don´t understand this,, this zone is known like Avenida de America

Torres desde cocheras --really this is a very ugly name, towers since garages? why not las torres de madrid ( madrid towers)

Surbatan ( Sur batan) i think only Batan is correct, it is not necesary sur

Ventilla -- really it is not the best district of Madrid and it is not placed there, right there is one of the most richest disctrict of madrid named : La Moraleja

Parque Agustin Rodriguez-- i think this place is better known like Fuencarral

Becquer-- i think this don´t say nothing, maybe Gustavo Adolfo Becquer but it is too long, this zone is famous by the Cementerio de la Almudena ( Almudena graveyard) La Almudena is right.

Los Sacramentin-- i never heard this zone,really i think is worst write, i think the zone known by all people and one the most popular zone in madrid is : Vallekas.

Santa Cristina it is not a known place too, why not Estadio Vicente Calderon ( Atletico de Madrid Stadium) or San Isidro ( the Saint of madrid, there is placed the zone where people celebrate the feast day, it is the most tipical of madrid)

San Miguel Arcangel --- i never heard this too, this zone could be Usera or Carabanchel, a very well known zones of madrid

Will look at the names given later on today, but right now with your names, I do see no reason to change them to your suggestions. Why, because even though you say you have lived in Madrid and not heard of some of these places, that does not mean they do not exist. Some of the others like the airport is not even on the map. It would be way out to the top right of the map. Some of these buildings with the territs named after them are named that, not after any particular district. You mentioned that Ventilla is not a nice district, but that is no reason to remove it. Their are many parts of the world that are not nice, but we still have maps of them. But I will go through the names more closely later for you and see if any do need to be changed. Surbatan is correct for that territ. Sur may not be necessary but from what I have read and seen, it is OK.

i only try to help you, of course i don´t have any interest in that you change any or nothing in the map,i am not saying that those places doesn´t exit, but are so rare or unknown for people that if you change the name of map of madrid for barcelona or Valencia maybe won´t be problem because in all citys there are these names.about airport, check the map,it is there and Ventilla is a famous district by drugs,and it is right on the other side on the map, i think it is not a big or representative district in madrid to be signed, there are a lot of districts bigger and more important thar are not signed in the mapBatan is a small "district "very close to Casa de Campo ( zoo,Amusement park,)but really is part of the another bigger district named La Latina and it is so small that doesn´t have north-south-east or west.

Not saying Madrid does not have an airport, just saying it is not anywhere close to the maps borders.

Ventilla is a famous district by drugs

So what, can anyone name a city that does not have these problems and give a reason why these places should not be represented on a map if it is an area covered?There may be other districts, but these are the ones that have been chosen over the coarse of the maps development over the last few months. And no territ has been named after a district, they have all been named after buildings are parts of areas.

Here are some of the photos used for my drawings.

Not all of the buildings are accurate, but when you turn a picture that is 500+ pixel photo into a 50 pixel drawing, a lot of the detail is lost. But all names are accurate. This has been discussed a lot throughout the thread. Spent the last hour or so looking at your names and not one can I find worth a change. Some are not on the map whilst others are a personal choice. If I changed them for you, what is to say someone else would not come in and say, put them back. This late in the game, it is a judgement call by me. But thanks for the look in.

lol it seems you are doing me a favour.ok, i sent you the ideas, but you don´t want heard,so i won´t spent more time on itclearly a lot of spanish guys sent you a message in this thread about Madrid and you looked for the best info too.

100023690 wrote:lol it seems you are doing me a favour.ok, i sent you the ideas, but you don´t want heard,so i won´t spent more time on itclearly a lot of spanish guys sent you a message in this thread about Madrid and you looked for the best info too.

greetings ;-(

Not doing you a favour, just doing what I have to do as a map maker.I heard all your ides for names, but I did see no good reason for a change.Yep, when I do a map of anywhere, I send a mass PM to around a 100 or so from that country, I tend to be lucky if one or two stay and help like this map, but mostly I get mass PMs back saying do this or that. I like the map and the buildings chosen where also done for their different looks more than what is famous.

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

I am posting this here as a thread in the Spanish forum has been set up about this map.

I have had to use google translate. I see some of you have posted in the thread already but I fell that a fuller answer here would also be helpful. Sorry if I have butchered your language.Guys, I understand this map may not be to everyone's taste. It has taken me many months and many drafts to get this far. When I started the map, I sent a PM to around 100 players that have Spain as country. I recieved many replys and a few even posted in the thread. The buildings that I chose to draw on the map where given to me by a Madrid native. I wanted to do something slightly different which is why, under the guidence of the player and the map moderators I zoomed right in to the centre of the map. I am sure that their are many buildings that could of been used, and many areas that also could of been depicted, but these ones where chosen for a couple of reasons. I wanted to use many well known buildings and some not so well known. Secondly, I wanted to use buildings that looked different and interesting. This is why you can see Atocha and Moncloa next to Mezquita de Omar. I have all through the thread taken requests on which buildings to use and names of the territs.These have been done many times and have changed many times. No matter what a map maker puts onto his maps, someone will always disagree with the decision. I have to then make the decision on what to use and what to discard. I know it may sound harsh but I am sure you will understand that at some point a map must be the map makers.

I understand that it is difficult, but the truth is that I agree with co ... I would have liked something more realistic.I am also surprised that the use of the river is not very noticeable in the city. On the other hand, wonder unused shaft of the Spanish for example, and are not put names Madrileños typical neighborhoods. I certainly do not recognize the city at all. And to tell the truth koontz, never seen you make a map that I dislike both graphically.

betiko, for realistic maps as I have done before and that all the maps I have tried to do, I have tried to do something a little different from before. On the river, no one can deny that Madrid has a river, however small. In some parts of the photos, it looks like you can jump over it, in other major bridges that span. As for the names of the typical neighborhoods, I was asked some time to think differently about the names. We have many maps that use names of neighborhoods, and while this may be good, I choose to go down a different path. Hence the names of the buildings.

ManBungalow wrote:I have to be honest with you koontz...I have no idea how this passed the graphics stage.

If we get you some comments, would you be willing to review this? Like, majorly?

Also, you signature is far too big.

I would like to understand what are your concerns.

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

ManBungalow wrote:I have to be honest with you koontz...I have no idea how this passed the graphics stage.

If we get you some comments, would you be willing to review this? Like, majorly?

Also, you signature is far too big.

I would like to understand what are your concerns.

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

What follows is an account of ManBungalow's opinion of the map, 'Classic Cities: Madrid'. Comments made by this author do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the community.

I'm not really sure where to start with this.

First, I suppose, the background. It just looks quite 'cheap' to me. And I've no idea what the theme of the map is supposed to be.The background is like some sort of crosshatch rug/papyrus texture with some Spanish cultural images pasted in; and then - for contrast - the grassy stuff in the playable area is like concrete with a green filter on.

At first I thought the hulking black border around everything is unappetising, but I've realised that it's the contrast between the foreground and the background which makes it as such. Maybe the roads should look more like roads. Maybe not, if they serve their function regardless. So I went and looked at the Macedonia map (which I like) again, as it also has a fully fledged black border (Macedonia map image: http://maps.conquerclub.com/Macedonia.L.jpg). However, the outline of Macedonia only really serves to distinguish the playable area from the background, and overall it looks like a consistent image...rather than there being a line between two completely different images.

Even in the London map, which is a map outline slapped on top of a recognisable image of London, (London map image: http://maps.conquerclub.com/London2.L.jpg) it is all well integrated and complements the overall theme.

As a side note, you might argue here that not every map should be the same (in terms of graphics, gameplay or otherwise), and there are a few things to say in response to that. Sure, that's fine. We don't want 200 Doodle Whatevers (as has been established in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=127&t=78446#p1860557), but we have 200+ maps with (to use quite an extreme but still self-evident example) regions which can't attack some other regions - and there is no practical way of quantifying how many regions must contribute to _X_ or do not do _Y_ in order to make a map significantly different. And the same is true for graphics - probably to an even greater extent. Hence, the argument is reduced to banality. But on with the observations...

Ah, also on a related note, you'll notice that I'm using various existing maps for comparison. I think this is justified in arguing that the quality of a map is relative (and, hence, never quite objective - which is a prevailing problem with the foundry system with no evident/imposable solution). I guess it's quite like saying that we already have nice-looking maps, this should be too. Which isn't the same as saying that we already have nice-looking maps, we don't need to introduce any more; which is quite a distinct matter. I'm sure if you posted this on landgrab they'd be all over it. So to speak.

So, in addition to the papyrus/whatever texture, you have these funny high-contrast buildings and trees sticking out, and none of it looks quite right. Perhaps that is, in part, because you have this fabric-ish background (the papyrus bit, that is) with some images on top which look like they're from a colouring book. Similarly, the individual region borders/names are in high-contrast colours which don't look healthy. The Chicago map, for instance, (link: http://maps.conquerclub.com/Chicago.L.jpg) also has some fairly extreme colours. It even has a red area adjacent to a green area! Even so, the colours look right. And aren't distracting visually.

As a fairly irrelevant point of interest more than anything, I put the Madrid map into the Google search by image tool, and the 'similar' images suggested are predominantly drawn in what appears to be crayon.

First, I suppose, the background. It just looks quite 'cheap' to me. And I've no idea what the theme of the map is supposed to be.The background is like some sort of crosshatch rug/papyrus texture with some Spanish cultural images pasted in; and then - for contrast - the grassy stuff in the playable area is like concrete with a green filter on.

Opinion. I have no defence against an opinion as everyone has a right to theirs.Riotous colours of Madrid. In the following spoiler you will find some pictures from Madrid that shows the colour scheme at work. Madrid is unlike most European cities. It has a lot of colour.The background is just that, a background. As for the images, you have 4 pictures relevant to Spain and more closely Madrid. Flamenco dancer, the bull, red cloth for the bull, and the bear and tree.These are placed in opposite corners to reflect each other. The Bull and cloth. The figures, dancer and Bear. Saying the green for the board is concrete with a green filter on is laughable. I scoured google and tried to find a concrete image that even remotely looks like this and still have not found one. It is actually a Fallera pattern which comes from Spain.

At first I thought the hulking black border around everything is unappetising, but I've realised that it's the contrast between the foreground and the background which makes it as such. Maybe the roads should look more like roads. Maybe not, if they serve their function regardless. So I went and looked at the Macedonia map (which I like) again, as it also has a fully fledged black border (Macedonia map image: http://maps.conquerclub.com/Macedonia.L.jpg&#41;. However, the outline of Macedonia only really serves to distinguish the playable area from the background, and overall it looks like a consistent image...rather than there being a line between two completely different images.

This part of your premise is flawed. Their is no black border to my image. Macedonia has one and whilst I have my opinion of that map, this is not the place for it. The black lines in my image are roads, not a border. If I had the outside ones look different you could easily say what you did. Should they look more like roads, I tried that route and was asked to take it back a step as it made the crossings harder to see. But what the roads do have and this ties in with the rest of the map is a cartoon feel to them. A road but not quite a road. As for distinguishing between the the playable area and non playable area, the distinct change in colour from brown to green and the out lying road serves this purpose.

No it does not. The London map is absolutely rubbish IMO. All natty did was take a generic photo and reduce the opacity of the map to let it show through. Change the background image to this:change the names on the map and you have Classic Cities Madrid. Their is nothing about London on that map apart from the background image. At least my one has images associated to Spain and in particular to Madrid.

As a side note, you might argue here that not every map should be the same (in terms of graphics, gameplay or otherwise), and there are a few things to say in response to that. Sure, that's fine. We don't want 200 Doodle Whatevers (as has been established in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=127&t=78446#p1860557), but we have 200+ maps with (to use quite an extreme but still self-evident example) regions which can't attack some other regions - and there is no practical way of quantifying how many regions must contribute to _X_ or do not do _Y_ in order to make a map significantly different. And the same is true for graphics - probably to an even greater extent. Hence, the argument is reduced to banality. But on with the observations...

We do have thngs that you allude to in this part. They are called golden numbers. Something that this map has. As for saying that not every map should be the same, here we agree, but can you find another map that looks like this or plays like this? You cannot as their is not one yet on this site.

Ah, also on a related note, you'll notice that I'm using various existing maps for comparison. I think this is justified in arguing that the quality of a map is relative (and, hence, never quite objective - which is a prevailing problem with the foundry system with no evident/imposable solution). I guess it's quite like saying that we already have nice-looking maps, this should be too. Which isn't the same as saying that we already have nice-looking maps, we don't need to introduce any more; which is quite a distinct matter. I'm sure if you posted this on landgrab they'd be all over it. So to speak.

This is not the place to argue the faults of the foundry. But the one point you made clear is that you do not like this map in any way and hope to see it stopped. You made yourself clear when you said this map to you is ugly, where others have stated they love it. This is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Here is your opinion from throughout the thread.

MB wrote:This is still graphically overloaded.

Here cairnswk agreed with you and I redid a lot of the elements. The difference is, cairnswk came back, you did not.

MB wrote:What is even going on in this map ?

MB wrote:I have to be honest with you koontz...I have no idea how this passed the graphics stage.

So, in addition to the papyrus/whatever texture, you have these funny high-contrast buildings and trees sticking out, and none of it looks quite right. Perhaps that is, in part, because you have this fabric-ish background (the papyrus bit, that is) with some images on top which look like they're from a colouring book. Similarly, the individual region borders/names are in high-contrast colours which don't look healthy. The Chicago map, for instance, (link: http://maps.conquerclub.com/Chicago.L.jpg&#41; also has some fairly extreme colours. It even has a red area adjacent to a green area! Even so, the colours look right. And aren't distracting visually.

If their was one or two elements that had a high contrast to them over all the rest, then your point would be valid. But as the overall image is like that and no one part of it is off, it works. It is all the same. The contrasting colours are their, as I stated before, Madrid and Spain are like this. It has a riot of colour all over the place. Big, bold, striking images that imprint into your mind. Again, you are trying to compare this to an older map. Whilst this may be an idea, again I say, you cannot really do this as we do not have another map made like this. If in the future, another map maker makes one, you can then compare the two because they will be alike. But you cannot compare this as it would be like comparing apples to oranges. Both nice, but today I want an orange, tomorrow I might like an apple.

As a fairly irrelevant point of interest more than anything, I put the Madrid map into the Google search by image tool, and the 'similar' images suggested are predominantly drawn in what appears to be crayon.

So far, MB, you have picked up on little details you do not like, anyone can do that, but what you failed to say was what was wrong with the map. You said the roads do not look like roads. You said the buildings have this funny look to them. You have said the colours are too bright. These individual elements may not work alone, but together they do. Easy of these elements may not work for London or Chicago or Cairo, but together for Madrid they do.As I said earlier, you do not like this map, even some of the players from Madrid do not like it, but others do. Halting a map because you do not like it or the map maker, is not sporting. You have your opinion and others have theirs. You are welcome to give your opinions in he map threads but if you do not comment, then you do not have a say. The one comment you gave that was graphically good and not opinion based:

MB wrote:This is still graphically overloaded.

was worked on and the map changed. It is not up to me to come looking for you to look at the map. In fact, you have been in the foundry a lot recently over the last months when this has been made and apart from the 3 I showed, you have not commented on the map. This leads me to believe you accepted the changes. But again, your opinion is wanted, and is also necessary to get a map made as all comments needs to be addressed. I hope this addresses your comments and we can now listen to others and play this one.

isaiah40 wrote:Darn you koontz!! You're making my job easy on this one! I liked this map from day one. I'll look at it a little close in the next couple of days.

ironsij0287 wrote:I think this looks great. Perhaps the best looking of the World City maps to come down the pipe recently.

Dukasaur wrote:It is beautiful... I think you've managed to capture the riot of bright colours that one associates with Iberia.